Essays on literary and theological themes

November 21, 2007

More Motu Proprio Madness

It appears that a new Heresy is stalking the Catholic world: COMMUNION IN THE HAND!

.

The Heresy has been identified by Archbishop Ranjith of the Congregation for Divine Worship, interviewed in Inside the Vatican, July 21, 2007.

.

"Communion in the hand had not been something that was first properly studied and reflected upon before its acceptance by the Holy See. It had been haphazardly introduced in some countries of Northern Europe and later become accepted practice, eventually spreading into many other places. Now that is a situation that should have been avoided. The Second Vatican Council never advocated such an approach to liturgical reform."

Let us distinguish carefully. The post-conciliar reform was not entirely negative; on the contrary, there are many positive aspects in what has been realised. But there are also changes introduced without authorisation which continue to be carried forward despite their harmful effects on the faith and liturgical life of the Church. I speak for example of a change that was brought about in the reform which was not proposed either by the Council Fathers or by Sacrosanctum Concilium, that is, communion in the hand. This contributed in a way to a certain loss of faith in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This practice, and the abolition of the altar rails, of kneelers in churches, and the introduction of practices which obliged the faithful to remain seated or standing during the elevation of the Most Holy Sacrament reduced the genuine meaning of the Eucharist and the sense of profound adoration which the Church should direct towards the Lord, the Only-begotten Son of God.

As Corriere della Sera vaticanologist Luigi Accattoli points out, it is completely false to say that communion in the hand was introduced 'abusivamente' (the word translated as 'without authorisation' above):

.

‘Is it true that communion in the hand was introduced abusively? Paul VI, before authorizing the episcopal conferences to introduce such innovations, consulted the entire episcopate of the Latin Church, and gave an account of this in the instruction Memoriale Domini (1969); he subjected the decision to the qualified majority of two thirds and to confirmation on the part of the Holy See (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM). It is on the basis of this procedure that the novelty was introduced in almost the whole world, meeting the approval of the faithful. The Italian bishops approved it in the assembly of 1989 – after having thought about it for ten years – and the decree enacting it is signed by Cardinal Ugo Poletti, President, and Archbishop Camillo Ruini, Secretary.’ (http://www.luigiaccattoli.it/blog/)

.

One blogger at the Hermeneutics of Continuity website claims that Memoriale Domini rejects communion in the hand, which slipped in though a loophole (!). In fact, however, Archbishop Ranjith knows very well that Paul VI authorised communion in the hand in principle; but he considers Paul VI to have abused his authority in doing so. The idea is abroad the Paul VI was not entitled to introduce such radical changes in the liturgy and that Vatican II did not license them either. The schismatic Society of Pius X is referred to with great respect by Archbishop Ranjith in his Fides interview, as a misjudged group who are recalling us to liturgical integrity. Bishop Fellay, leader of this schismatic group, has lauded Ranjith to his followers while denouncing Cardinal Arinze as a ‘traitor’ to their cause.

.

In his In the Vatican piece, Ranjith speaks in the same disparaging way of the Vatican II reforms:

.

‘Undoubtedly there have been positive results too; but the negative effects seem to have been greater, causing much disorientation in our ranks. The churches have become empty, liturgical free-wheeling has become the order of the day, and the true meaning and significance of that which is celebrated has been obscured. One has to, then, begin wondering if the reform process had in fact been handled correctly.’

.

The emphases and priorities in Archbishop Ranjith’s Eucharistic theology fall on sacrifice and transubstantiation, not on a more integral meal-event celebration of the Paschal Mystery that would do justice to what these ideas point to: ‘Through the Eucharist, the Lord assumes us unto Himself and in Him we are placed in communion with all the others who unite themselves to Him. It is thus not so much a sociological experience as much as a mystical one. Hence even as "communion" the Eucharist is a heavenly experience. What is more important is the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. Each time we celebrate the Eucharist we relive the sacrifice of Calvary, celebrating it as the moment of our salvation. And this very fact also constitutes the unique dignity and font of identity of the priest. He has been instituted by Christ to celebrate the wonderful mystery of turning this corruptible piece of bread into the very glorified Body of Christ and this little bit of wine into the Blood of Christ, enacting the sacrifice of Calvary for the salvation of the world.’

.

Abp Ranjith does not urge replacement of the Novus Ordo by the Tridentine rite, but he sees a gradual transformation of the Novus Ordo through the influence of the Tridentine rite: ‘In the interaction of the two Roman traditions, it is possible that the one may influence the other eventually. We can’t say everything is completed and finished, that nothing new could happen. In fact, Vatican II never advocated immediate change in the liturgy. Rather it preferred change to "grow organically from forms already existing" (SC 23). As Cardinal Antonelli, a much revered member of the Concilium that undertook the revision of the liturgy after the Council, noted in his diaries, some of the liturgical changes after the Council had been introduced without much reflection, haphazardly, and made later to become accepted practice.’

.

So Paul VI, it is implied, erred in introducing ‘immediate change’ and we must now bring the Novus Ordo back to something more like the Tridentine rite it replaced. A 2003 letter of Cardinal Ratzinger envisages, in the long run, one rite only, which will absorb some minor aspects of the Novus Ordo that have ‘proven themselves.’ See http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/a-frightening-l.html.

.

Communion in the Hand is faulted also as being alien to Asian culture and as having been imposed without consultation of the laity – criticisms that might make more sense if the laity had been consulted about the recent Motu Proprio or the proposed new translations of the liturgy, or if inculturated liturgies had been warmly encouraged in Asia.

.

‘In some Asian countries we see a trend to introduce Communion in the hand which is received standing. This is not at all consonant with Asian culture. The Buddhists worship prostrate on the floor with their forehead touching the ground. Moslems take off their shoes and wash their feet before entering the mosque for worship. The Hindus enter the temple bare-chested as a sign of submission. When people approach the king of Thailand or the emperor of Japan, they do so on their knees as a sign of respect. But in many Asian countries the Church has introduced practices like just a simple bow to the Blessed Sacrament instead of kneeling, standing while receiving Holy Communion, and receiving Communion on the hand. And we know that these cannot be considered practices congruent with Asian culture. Besides, the laity whose role today is being enhanced in the Church are not even consulted when such decisions are made.’

I hold no brief either for or against the distribution of the Holy Eucharist in the hand, as I am not a Roman Catholic, but an Eastern Catholic.

While it is certain, from a reading of the post apostolic and pre-nicene Fathers, that such distribution was an early practice in the Church, the Byzantine practice of intinction of the Body with the Blood would make such a return to that early practice unfeasible, or at the very least, rather messy.

Nonetheless, from an Eastern point of view, the resumption of the practice after the Second Vatican Council appears to be yet another triumph of reasoned principles over the development of Tradition, rather like the demand for a celibate clergy back in the thirteenth century, or the use of unleavened bread in the ninth.

A plain reading of Memoriale Domini supports the comment that it rejected communion in the hand ("the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful"). Exceptions were to be allowed if a Bishops' Conference asked. Pope Paul VI did not authorise communion in the hand "in principle" - he rejected it in principle because communion on the tongue "expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist". Nevertheless he allowed it in practice.

Such a decision is the object of legitimate criticism, I think. You have misrepresented Archbishop Ranjith's comments by implying that he referred to communion in the hand as a "heresy".

Dear Fr Finegan, a "plain reading" of Roman documents is perhaps not as simple as you imagine -- as indeed the fate of the recent Motu Proprio shows. Some hermeneutics is required. In any case no very difficult hermeneutics is needed to see that the document gives the green light to communion in the hand. Paul VI expresses a preference for communion in the mouth, but clearly accedes to demands for communion in the hand, laying down the process for authorising it (and the precise methods of its implementation, in the Osservatore Romano letter). He also says that communion in the hand can have the same theological dignity as communion in the mouth. You could say that he sees communion in the mouth as the ordinary form and communion in the hand as the extraordinary form.

Someone is quoting an alleged statement of John Paul II that only the priest is allowed to touch the sacred species. Such a statement makes little sense given the actual practice of the church (lay ministers of the Eucharist), and indeed given the role of laity in taking the Eucharist as viaticum to the sick in older times. In any case, a single statement of a Pope cannot override the authority of a formal magisterial utterance such as Memoriale Domini.

To say that there is a contradiction between Paul VI's principles and his practice is insulting to his intelligence and competence. It also implies that the bishops who took up the Pope's offer were acting with no basis in principle, which again is rather insulting. The acceptance of the practice of receiving communion in the hand by the people of God is also dismissed as of no account.

(By the way, Paul VI at the 1971 Synod offered the bishops the opportunity to allow the ordination of married men, at the Pope's discretion, in certain circumstances. To Paul's surprise the Synod turned this down. Paul VI greatly respected the authority of bishops, as shown by his response to the episcopal conferences' reception of Humanae Vitae. Since 1978 there has been a systematic undercutting of episcopal authority, very much against the spirit of the Council. And as a retired Australian bishop has recently pointed out, the concentration of power in Roman hands has not been accompanied by the responsible exercise of that power, leaving a huge void of leadership in the case of the sex abuse scandals.)

In sharp contrast to Memoriale Domini, Archbishop Ranjith associates communion in the hand with loss of faith in the Real Presence. Thus he sees the practice, if not as heretical, at least as haeresi proximum.

Of course my opening flourish about Heresy stalking the land is satirical -- "I must have my sport" as Dr Johnson would say. The point of the satire is that Abp Ranjith is quite famous as a heresy hunter, as the luckless Tissa Balasuriya can attest.

Let me say that the tone of aggressive polemic against well-meaning bishops and even popes adopted by the fans of the Motu Proprio brings them into close proximity to the schismatic Bishop Bernard Fellay and confirms the worst fears of their opponents. If the TLM enthusiasts played their cards more serenely they would have greater success. As it stands, most priests and bishops, like Cardinal Martini, will continue to feel that to celebrate the TLM is to betray Vatican II.